This post is, as Michael Spencer says, outstanding! A sample:
What is at issue is if God did something we can see and understand, and in understanding it we should respond. Peter in Acts 2 says, “You should know that Jesus is both Lord and Christ!” That is, Jesus has both the authority to judge and the power to save.
Now, what does Chan do with that? Does he say we are loverly? No – he says we deserve judgment and we get the testimony of the Cross – and we should know it that way. In spite of our sin, and because of our sin, God ponies up the Cross. God does. God takes the action.
I am sure it would be much more systematically-astute to say, “and now, if your lip is quivering at the idea that you are a sinner who deserves hell, but God has paid a price for sin which you see as just and loving, you must be one of the elect, so rejoice in your salvation.”
The problem, of course, is that Peter doesn’t say that at Pentecost! Peter says, “know that Jesus is Lord and Christ – now do something about it.” In our American culture, we say, “choose!” Joshua said, “choose this day whom you will serve” – not meaning that they were able but that they ought to be willing, they have an obligation.
Pastor Chan is saying, “do something about it!” He’s saying God has made a free and public offer of salvation – now do something about it. Take action. If today you hear His voice, harden not your hearts.
Naturally, I would quibble over the parsing of two titles, but the message is still accurate. Steve Camp was my favorite Christian musician in my youth. I remember he did a great job at my alma mater (in the face of amazingly bad local technology!). It would be consonant with my fond memories and high esteem of him if he and Frank could come to an understanding.
Frank’s post underscores for me how theologically dangerous the FV/NPP smear really is. It is nothing more than the application of the “free offer of the Gospel” to the covenant or the visible Church. You don’t have to know whether a fellow professing Christian is predestined to eternal life, or truly regenerate, to know that he can and should be exhorted to continue in the faith, to believe in God’s actions and promises to him in baptism, and to respond to God’s initiative in taking action.
I was re-reading the minority OPC report on the free offer.
It makes the same kinds of accusations about the the FO that are made about the FV:
“1. It is not clear that the exegesis and the conclusions drawn have been conclusively substantiated.
2. The standpoint of the report goes beyond the expressions adopted by the Reformed churches in the past”
Then it goes on to question whether the Bible talking about the “desires” of God aren’t just anthopomorphisms, as the response to the FV is to say that Paul’s language is just the language of charity.
The Free offer is without precedent in the confession:
“That God desires the salvation of the reprobate viewed as reprobate is an absurdity not sanctioned by the language of Scripture nor precedented by the language of Reformed theologians.”
I think you’re right. And the discussion of God’s attitude toward the reprobate is strikingly similar to the hypertrophied use of the “invisible church” as all that God cares about. Non-elect members are nothing more than hypocrites just as the reprobate are only hated by God. There are no “salvific” benefits for all members of the visible Church and God possesses no salvific desires for the reprobate.
Of course, if “salvific” means what actually gets fulfilled then it is tautologically true. Just as if desires are decrees it is tautologically true that God doesn’t desire the salvation of the reprobate.
But the issue is whether or not God’s relationship with his covenant people can be reduced to what he has decreed will be the case at the Last Day. Is the fury of his wrath then the only emotion we can attribute to him now?